The following articles are contained below;-
Facts
are Useless
The Public Perception of
Science
Particle Physics
Public
Confidence in Science
Is Science Losing
Its Objectivity
"NO LANGUAGE DEFINES REALITY: IT CAN ONLY SAY WHAT
WE KNOW ABOUT REALITY"
Ronald Omnes
Facts
are Useless
"Facts are Useless", dealt with issues of
whether or not scientific controversies can be resolved merely by the acquisition of
additional factual information. Advocates of the title would claim that there are no
crucial experiments that would allow clear-cut decisions upon controversial issues, since
any such scientific results can be interpreted in many different ways. The philosopher
Alibis hoped that one day, all decisions would be reducible to logical considerations and
that the truth or fallacy of a belief or argument would be decided by mathematical rigour
acting upon basic tenets. However, Godels Incompleteness theorem shows us that there is no
complete and consistent axiomatisable system powerful enough even to deal with simple
arithmetic, let alone less formalist systems (the inability to achieve universal
decideability was shown by Alan Turing). Hence the need for judges to interpret the spirit
of the law, since no formal system is capable of deducing what is justice, simply from
legal prepositions. (Indeed laws themselves need to be continuously revised as society
evolves, often as a result of scientific progress.)
Most of the study booklets in part A, illustrate the uncertainties in making
decisions upon known scientific facts. For example Brent Spar, Alar and Embryo Research
illustrate that power politics tend to dominate such decision-making. In part B scientific
controversy is shown to hinge upon considerations of 'Ethics' and also how we perceive 'Risk' and make decisions in a 'Climate Of
Uncertainty'. However philosophers such as Karl
Popper would argue that these controversies only arise when there is a wide margin of
uncertainty, caused by a lack of scientific facts and that when sufficient data is made
available, a more clear cut objective decision becomes available, (as might occur in the
studies BSE, Mars and Power lines)
Clearly one must have complete confidence in the facts and all the relevant
information needs to be known (this being the task of science). However therein lies the
uncertainty, since as science advances it can refute some of its previously conceived
beliefs. Even Popper is of the opinion that science cannot yield absolute truth but rather
that progress is made by refuting prior hypotheses, which then prompts the development of
a better theory. The debate therefore revolved around how these two contrasting views can
be reconciled.
Cot death and the Alar controversy are examples of where the technocratic mode of
risk assessment can provide a useful guide for decision-making. In Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), statistical
analysis of the data indicated that there are several features associated with its
occurrence, other than the antimony scare that received most of the public’s
attention. An objective analysis of the data
showed that there was an increase likelihood of SIDS, if the baby was placed on it's front
or side, is covered with too many blankets/clothes and kept in excessively warm
surroundings. The risk analysis particularly highlights the hazards associated with
parents who smoked (in one study 83% of cot deaths occurred in a household where a parent
smoked). In addition, manufactures removed antimony, arsenic and phosphorus from the flame
retardant used in their mattresses, although scientific evidence of such risk is
inconclusive.
In the case of the Alar controversy, if the media had concentrated on the facts
alone, the public would have appreciated the relatively small risks involved in using such
low levels of pesticides. Such a small risk would have been put alongside that of other
acceptable daily hazards and the public would have realised, that the benefits provided a
strong argument for the acceptance of such measures in the food industry. Unfortunately
this was not the case and there was a tide of public opposition following the media
campaign, which had artificially increased the public assessment of risk.
In a survey carried out on 210 people by New Scientist, most people
trusted family and friends (a weighting of 80% or more), while governments
were least trusted (companies and media faired little better at ~20%).
Considering the fact that governments (together with companies) employ
a large proportion of scientific experts, it is no surprise that preconceived
public perception could produce a risk judgment that is at variance to
those of the experts. The public can become skeptical about expert scientific
advice, if they lose trust in its impartiality or scientist’s ability
to view the full implications of their work. "The probability of
improbable accidents grows with time and the number of implemented mega-technologies."
Indeed scientists themselves generally do not feel that they should comment
on evaluation of their work, especially if it involves commenting outside
their field of expertise, while the media feel that they should. (The
media themselves are rated very low, regarding trust but they non the
less have a sizable impact on public opinion, a fact that is reflected
by the large revenue it can command from advertising.)
Individuals realise that there is often a wide range of interpretation that can be
attached to a scientific issue (eg.BSE, Alar,
Nuclear power) and therefore their perception of the expertise and trustworthiness of the
authorities that are giving advice, greatly influences their own judgement. If the public
distrusts organisations which sponsor a piece of scientific research, then the scientific
evidence is also likely to be considered equivocal and the advice of such experts may not
be trusted. Indeed this realisation is employed by many large organisations; in America
particularly, there has been a growth in conflict over technological decision making, in
which the role of the scientific expert has been that of 'advocacy science' in which they
are hired by competing groups in order to undermine each others argument. In conclusion
therefore, the psychology of the individual plays a prominent role in how risk is
perceived.
Sociological considerations are another important aspect, in the understanding of
risk perception. Cultural Theory allows us to understand how people's outlook on issues
such as risk is shared by the society in which they live and that the way that people
perceive the world, varies across time and cultures. (As the novelist L.P. Hartley once
wrote, "the Past is another country, they do things differently there")
If we are to analyse the way a public interprets the risk of a disease such as BSE,
it would surely be vastly different in mainland Europe compared to a Third World country
that is frequently ravaged by famine. Likewise, a nuclear free country like Denmark would
produce a different response to the storing of nuclear waste, than would a repressed
Soviet Republic during the cold war era.
Although in western society we live in an era where life has probably become less
hazardous, the question of risk has risen in public prominence. Greenpeace and Friends Of
The Earth now enjoy a position of respect in society, whereas previously they were
regarded somewhat more disparagingly. Such trends cannot be ignored (especially with the
rise of the Green Party in Europe) and can only be completely explained, when one takes
into account social theories, as well as hard scientific facts, if we are to appreciate
how risk is perceived
Culture Theory categorises society into 4 groups, in relation to the way in which
they perceive risk. These are characterised by two parameters depending on the degree of
bonding of the group and the significance given to rules and regulations. Although all
four categories of Fatalism, Individualism, Hierarchy and Egalitarianism are found in the
same society most people do not fit neatly into any one niche. Nonetheless their complex
interaction needs to be taken into account, if we are to appreciate for example, why such
a public have a high perception of risk regarding nuclear power, compared to the more real
dangers of car accidents and smoking.
Risk perception is therefore a complicated issue and although we need to rely on
the integrity of scientific information, the technocratic assessment of risk cannot itself
account for the way the public perceive risk. We therefore cannot regard risk as being a
purely objective activity but need to allow for the way the public perception can be
influenced by social and psychological factors.
Although a risk can be effectively modelled, using well-established statistical
methods, the way that specific organisations evaluate any 'residual risk' is open to a
considerable degree of bias. The public are sometimes sensitive to this manipulation and
the way, in which they interpret risk, will to some extent (as the Cultural Relativists
would put it); depend 'on your point of view'.
Many of the modern day risks that are a concern of the public, do not involve
simple cause and effect scenarios but rather as Beck points out, are often experienced
indirectly, are not limited in space and time and are only revealed after thorough
investigation, in which it is usually difficult to compensate those affected. Science is intimately
involved in many of the problems that cause public concern, such as those brought about by
nuclear, genetic and chemical technology.
Also the level of acceptability of certain risks is itself determined by the level of
scientific knowledge available. As science advances, it can often refute it's original
claims of safety,” it is the success of science which sow the doubts as to it's own
risk perception". Hence, although the advise given by experts in the field is crucial
to an understanding of the risks involved, the way those risks are perceived, especially
in relation to any benefits or alternatives, needs to be seen in the much wider context of
the public arena. Only with the synergy of both points of view, can we hope to achieve a
situation in which the way risk is assessed, causes the public to react in a responsible
manner.
References:
1. Environment of infants
during sleep and risk of the sudden infant death
syndrome.
P. J. Fleming & Smoking and SIDS P.S.
2 Much
Ado About Alar. J. D. Rosen
3. 'Risk' page 38
5. 'Experts' page7
6. 'Trust' Understanding science from the perspective
of the sociology of the scientific knowledge:an overview.
S. Yearly
7. 'Experts' The crisis of
scientific expertise in fin de siecle Europe page 139
8. 'Risk' 'Can we now the risks we face' M Douglas and A
Wildawsky
9. 'Trust' Attitudes of selected public groups in the UK to
biotechnology page 35
10&11. 'Risk' New Scientist 28/9/96 'No cause for alarm'
4
&12 From Industrial Society
to Risk Society pg 106 U. Beck
The Public Perception of Science
Scientists regard their subject as a commendable search for truth, a way in which
we can make more sense of the world and harness nature's power. Associated with it, is the
dictum that knowledge allows control of ones
destiny, whereas ignorance makes you the plaything of fate. Indeed the very success of
science itself, is usually measured by the ability to provide such power and with it, also
wealth. In recent times however, science has become more critically assessed and the
possible adverse affects of such progress, have come under increasing scrutiny. Society
benefits from technological advances and in particular, we rely heavily on Faraday's
discovery ofelectromagnetic induction but recent scares regarding power lines and cancer
illustrates the cautious eye with which the public views such progress."Scandanavian
countries are so convinced that there is a link between the disease and power cables that
they will not allow homes or amenities to be built near them."A precautionary measure
nodoubt, since "epidemiological studies done in recent years show little evidence
that power lines are associated with an increase in cancer .........and a connection
between power line fields and cancer is biophysically implausible"
Science
is a process of theory construction and hypothesis testing. What
Characterises science from other activities is its reductional approach
to problem solving and its heavy reliance upon accurately obtained
empirical facts. Science prides itself upon its predictive
power and the fact that the results it obtains are reproducible to
a high degree of fidelity. Such an endeavor is exemplified by Quantum
Electrodynamics in which theory and experiment agree to an
accuracy of 11 significant figures. This achievement does however
highlight the point that often pure science can be pursued
for its own sake, even if it has no immediate application. In this respect
it may seem to share some of the values of art but if so, it
is art confined in a straight jacket, as opposed to Picasso's
truth without logic.
The general
public may not however be sympathetic to the higher ideals of
science (that of finding a greater truth for its own sake). A development
in technology that would for example, enhance the performance of
the motor car or computer, would meet greater approval, than
a breakthrough into the origins and history of the universe,
that has no apparent application. Consequently it becomes necessary
for government backed organisations to put the fanfare
before the facts, in order to entice public favour and secure funding.
For example, the following press release occurred prior
to the Senate making its decision upon the funding of future space research.”NASA
has made a startling discovery that points to the possibility that primitive
forms of microscopic life may have existed on Mars."
The public
notion of science often carries with it the misconception that scientific
knowledge is a faithful copy of the world rather than a tentative human
construction. (Newton had an entirely empirical approach to gravity ---"hypothesis non fingo"--
in direct contrast to Einstein's ontological space-time formulation).
Although science is usually value free compared to other disciplines,
the public tend to regard it as being mainly an objective observation
of nature as opposed to the constructions of explanations about
nature. The search for life on Mars has over the years, revealed this
tentative side to scientific inquiry, in which fashionable ideas have
had to be radically revised.
In fact the debate still continues, for as a recent assessment
of the situation claims
"although inorganic formation is possible, formation of the globules
by biogenetic processes could explain many of the features."
The necessary specialisation that is required by the various scientific disciplines
in itself tends to isolate the layman. While the public hold high expectation of the men
and women in white coats, they nonetheless find it hard to share their enthusiasm for what they view as a detached and
unemotional pursuit. Such a divide is further accentuated when scientific progress is seen
in a negative light and environmental problems and moral dilemmas, are viewed as a direct consequence of
technological progress, as in the case of ozone pollution and embryo research. We are
therefore left with the situation in which the public have a healthy respect for
scientific achievement but are somewhat alienated by its esoteric nature and sometimes suspicious
of the insular perspective held by some of its high priests.
Scientists
are sometimes depicted as having a somewhat blinkered approach to
their subject. They are given a problem to solve and work fastidiously
at their own area of expertise, within a given remit, but are
often viewed as having little empathy with the public.
"Volcanologists have no concern for the public and its
reaction to the problem of volcanoes and they just assume that
someone else will handle the responsibility." In such
cases, scientists are viewed as being aloof and single-minded
in their pursuit of their objectives without appreciating the wider ramifications
of their work. The public although acknowledging the technical ability
of such professionals, are sometimes suspicious as to the motives
of the government and organisations who sponsor such research
and development. Cases such as embryo research, illustrate
the ambivalent view held by the public, in that although they have
high expectations of scientists in finding solutions to specific problems,
they are also cynical towards their ability to perceive the full consequences
of their work. At
the same time scientists are portrayed as feeling indignant at the way
the public jumps to the wrong conclusions, as a result of their
ignorance. This then prompts them to leave their 'ivory tower’
and risk becoming embroiled in the public affray, in order
to prevent any further spread of what they regard as misleading information. To cite the reaction of one Nobel Laureate”
It was based on a popular appeal to unreason and anti-science.......the
Brent Spar decision is a sad and dangerous precedent. "Furthermore,
although scientists share the same epistemology, they can become
polarised in opposite directions, when political issues are at stake and
in this context, they are no different from the public
at large. Academics in the Brent Spar controversy for example,
had to defend their opinions against other scientists who had
allegiances to environmental groups.
Generally though, scientists are depicted as a homogeneous group of people in that
they share the same 'faith' in their subject and its methodology, even though they may
differ in their opinion regarding uncertain issues. The case studies do not refer to
social scientists very much but are mainly restricted to the Natural sciences. In some
instances a diverse panel of experts may be involved but these do not usually utilise the
advise of social scientists. Sometimes the panel may include those with specialities
outside the immediate area of research. In the case of power lines for example,
epidemiologists were as crucial to the report as the physicists and it is therefore
important that scientists with different fields of specialisation, communicate their
subject effectively to each other.
There are one or two instances where a particular public is inferred, as in the
case of Professor Bates' article on air pollution, which was publicised in the British
Medical Journal and aimed at the medical community. In the case of embryo research the
immediate public targeted was parliament, whose support was crucial to scientists,
although the implications would effect the public at large."It is suggested that
there was a pronounced movement in embryo research which was associated with a significant
alteration in the social relationship between
scientists and members of parliament.” Furthermore in the study of volcanic
emergencies, the public is regarded as a conglomerate of several specific groups,
including civil officials, relief agencies, police, land managers and media and even other
scientists.
Most of the articles however, treat the public as an amorphous
fictitious average whose lives have little contact with actual
scientific enterprise, but are none the less recipients of
its progress. In actual fact, no single undifferentiated 'public' exists,
since people tend to differ in age, sex, education and occupation
and many are unlikely to share much common understanding. There
are instances where the issues are regarded as being particularly
relevant to certain sections of the community (eg. children
in the case of leukaemia incidences near power lines) but most of the
studies do not single out a specific genre of public as being
relevant to the case study. Certainly the ramifications of
the issues affect the whole of the public and it is not constructive
to regard particular issues, as being relevant to particular sectors of
society, as may be the case in local politics for example.
The public does include scientists in relation to these debates,
simply because the public are regarded as what is left, when
one isolates the relevant scientific experts. A physicist or
toxicologist would therefore be regarded as member of the public
when one is writing a report on epidemiology. The very specialised nature
of research that is undertaken means that only a minority of
people have an in depth awareness of most of the issues involved
and the remainder, who are on the outside looking in, are regarded
as the public.
There is a danger, that the public--who are identified as those in need of scientific
information -- may become reliant on those in authority, simply because they do not
understand the reasoning presented in the information. In such cases it is not then the
information or the reasoning that is persuasive but the authority of the scientists. This
is indeed so in the case of ozone pollution, where the public are informed if the threshold
standards are breached but remain ignorant as to how those levels are established. The
situation is then that of a one way traffic of information and frustration can result in
protest marches or the occupation of development sites. It was such public concern over the London 'smog' of 1952, rather than action from
the medical profession, that led to the first clean air legislation in Britain. In such
instances the public are seen as possessing sound common sense, while the scientists
appear ineffective. To quote an aphorism of Francis Bacon "Nature to be commanded
must be obeyed."
References:
Power lines
Health effects of low-frequency electric and magnetic fields. David A. Savitz.
Environmental Science and Technology.Vol 27 No1,1993
Pylon cancer row sparks fear among residents. Western and Somerset Mercury 5th
April 1996
Are pylons and radon a lethal cocktail. New scientist, 17th Feb 1996
URL http://www.niehs.gov/emfrapid/home.htm
http://www.bookcase.com/library/faq/isenet/medicine/powerlines-cancer-faq.html
CD-Rom. 'Cancer link to powercables exagerated, say critics' Masood,E.(1996)
Mars
Life on Mars?Two views of the question.O.U S802 case studies 'The search for life
on mars'
URL http://www.worldaccessnet.com/rdodd/mars.html
http://www.ipl.nasa.gov/mars
http://rampages.onramp.net/-binder/Mars.html#his
CD-Rom.'Search for past life on Mars:Possible relic biogenetic activity in Martian
meteorite'.McKay,D.S et al Science,Vol273, No 5277.
Ozone pollution
Air pollution:time for more clean air legislation? Prof. David Bates.BMJ,16th
March1996
CD-Rom If this is what it's doing to our washing, what's it doing to our lungs?'
Moffat,S Social Science and Medicine, Vol41, Pt 6
URL http://www.aeat.co.uk/product/centres/netcen/airqual/welcome.html
Brent Spar
A triumph for the forces of ignorance. Sir John Vane. Daily Mail 22nd June
URL http://www shell.expro.brentspar.com/shell/brentspar/news-home/
CD-Rom General Considerations in Relation to Deep Sea Disposal. NERC(1996)
Particle Physics
We live in a high-tech world, in which scientific progress is marching
forward at an astounding rate, yet the general public seems alarmingly
ignorant regarding basic scientific knowledge and this is particularly
true of physics. As we approach the new millennium, the conflict between
science and superstition still smolders and the public remain in the dark
regarding revolutionary theories, many of which were established before
the Second World War. The aim of this mini project is therefore to review
how the fundamental forces of modern physics are conveyed to the general
public, and I will begin by taking an historical perspective. At some
point during man's anthropological ascent, there must have been an ape
that, upon picking up a rock to use against his neighbour, began to wonder
what it was made of. With such an apocryphal story, so began the germination
of 'man the abstract thinker' and this quest has been ongoing ever since
but has always taken a subordinate role to more pragmatic concerns.
Primitive man also shared one other fascination with modern physics -
that of the heavens above. Today the frontiers of physics are aimed at
unifying all physical phenomena under a single law and this 'Holy Grail'
of physics satisfies man's innate curiosity, as to the structure of matter
and the nature of the universe. 'Understanding' is more important than
' knowing'; the physically true is believed to be logically simple, in
that it has unity at its foundation.
. Most layman
books that aim to popularise modern fundamental physics take an historical perspective in
attempting to explain the evolution of what are very intricate theories. Often beginning
with the early notions of the ancient Greeks etc, they trace the lineage through Newtonian
physics and finally onto Quantum Theory (Q.T.). I have attempted
to summarise this in Diagram 1.which is a brief resume of what is arguably one of the
greatest stories ever told - the history of physics. It is a personal perspective, which
would inevitably be written differently by others and even in several different ways by
the author himself. (I have, for conciseness left out many important developments and
eminent scientists). The popular cult series "The Hitchiker's Guide To The
Universe" quotes the answer to life the universe and everything as being 42! but the
best physics can come up with is 37 (this being the number of quantum fields currently
necessary in modern theory). This prompts the question that despite the interest the
public has in such a quest, why is their general knowledge of physics so lamentable?
Part of the answer is no doubt due to the heavy reliance upon mathematics in such
theories. As John Wheeler once remarked, the laws of nature seem to be written in the
language of mathematics and Paul Dirac has written as his epitaph "Physical laws
should have mathematical beauty". It is the conciseness and exactness of mathematics,
that gives physics it's predictive power and makes it a paragon for other academic
disciplines. However, many people have an aversion to mathematics and even science
generally is considered disparate to it. Einstein was in his day regarded as a
mathematician. as few were able to follow his tensor formulation of gravity. In his best
seller "A Brief History Of Time", Stephen Hawking was advised, that for every
equation he included, the sales of his book would be halved. Although one in twelve of the
British public have read this best seller, many would no doubt not claim to have succeeded
in grasping most of the esoteric concepts involved.
Many people are able to improve their ability at English when they leave
schools they mature, through reading books, newspapers and watching T.V.
debates etc, however their ability at maths is likely to declines they
rarely use or develop such ability in everyday circumstances (other than
trivial arithmetic). In contrast to this, theoretical physicists
increasingly need to resort to more abstract mathematical structures,
in order to improve the capability of their theories. Newton needed to
invent calculus, to deal with his theory of gravity, which united falling
objects on Earth, with the motion of heavenly bodies. Maxwell needed vector
analysis to unify electricity with magnetism, which put his subject beyond
the grasp of many of his contemporaries. Einstein
inspired by such ethos, united space and time but required the mathematics
of Riemannian geometry, in order to fulfill his dream and generalise his
theory to accelerating systems and hence gravity (via his principle of
equivalence).
Post war physicists found an increasing reliance upon the use of group theory, in order to
unify electromagnetism with the weak nuclear force and describe other sub-atomic
phenomena. More recently, topology has become an indispensable mathematical tool in an
attempt to unify gravity with the other three fundamental interactions, namely
electromagnetism and the weak and strong nuclear forces. Thus, it is difficult even for
physicists to keep up with recent developments and those working at the frontiers of
'fundamental' physics have usually come from a background in applied mathematics. However
such unavoidable esoteric language does unify a diversity of phenomena and has great
predictive power.
The other main difficulty with this branch of science is the ever-increasing use of
abstract concepts, which are far removed from everyday experience. Common sense - as
Einstein observed- -are the layers of prejudice that are laid down before the age of
18! Faraday was revolutionary in his concept of a field, which was developed to its
full entirety by Maxwell equations. The field concept was a break with the Newtonian
particle models of the universe and did away with the problem of action at a distance. Not
only did Maxwell's equations unite electricity with magnetism and revealed the nature of
light but they were the first equations to be Lorentz covariant, as opposed to previous
physical laws, which obeyed 'common sense' Galilean transformation. The concept of the
field thus had a reality of their own, which was readily seized upon by Einstein when he
reformulated Newton's universal law of gravity. In his field equations he had replaced the
concept of a gravitational force with that of a curved space-time. Gravitational mass
tells space how to bend, which in turn, determines how inertial mass will move, (Einstein
also shows the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass). Already we see that there
is a difficulty in conveying such theories, for in addition to their mathematical
formulation, it is difficult to understand what a curvature in pseudo -Euclidean
space-time is. Analogies are useful but one must also be aware of their limitations.
Physical science attempts to extend our knowledge of the world beyond our immediate senses
and the public should not expect the constructs that work so well within our scale of
experience, to be valid on the sub-atomic level or where velocities and masses are far
beyond our everyday world
If relativity theory is difficult to explain, then
quantum mechanics is even harder. The Nobel Laureate R. Feynman once remarked
that nobody really understands it and as Bohr said, anyone who does not get
a little dizzy when they first become acquainted with quantum theory,
doesn't really understand it! Quantum theory (Q.T.) marks a break with
the classical determinism which reached its pinnacle with relativity. An electron
that appears to be in two places at once or ends upside down, when rotated by
a whole revolution, seems to be an alarming sacrifice to make, in order to improve
our understanding of what the world is made of. What were considered as particles
are now described in terms of waves and vice versa. The probabilistic and subjective
interpretation of Q.T. was not accepted by two of it's principal founders, namely
Planck and Einstein.
It is at about this point that most layman books have traditionally aimed at and the
public may be forgiven for believing that not much dramatic progress has occurred since
then. However recently, several eminent Professors have been inspired to rectify the
situation and there is now a steady flux of popular books which attempt to convey even the
most recent and radical developments.(c.f. Appendix )..
The concepts thus move into another hierarchy from the days of Bohr and Einstein and the
mathematics ever more formidable. Indeed, the new value for the magnetic moment of an
electron, using quantum electrodynamics, required two crack teams of of
mathematicians working for 4 years. However such an agreement with experiment resulted in
several Nobel Prizes and validated a fundamental theory that is arguably mankind’s
greatest intellectual construct. Although steady scientific progress has been made
primarily in QT, indefatigably, General Relativity (which contradicts the spirit of
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle), has been tested to an even greater degree of accuracy
In response to the widening gap between such advanced scientific understanding
and the knowledge of the general public, many T.V. and radio programs
have been produced,( c.f. Appendix). Some involve flying throughout the
world and visiting the incredible cathedrals of knowledge viz. telescope
observatories and particle accelerators, as well as interviews with internationally
acclaimed scientists who lead the field. Other programs have also
introduced the novelty of controversy and debate into science, in an attempt
to enthrall the public. Such forums of topical discussions, work well
in attracting audiences to current affairs, the aim being, that such an
approach will tend to make the non-specialist feel involved with science,
rather than being intimidated by it.
It has however been noted that amongst adults, the main interest in physical
science has been in the domain of astronomy and cosmology. As the head
of NASA recently remarked, most of us have at some stage stood on a starlit
beach and gazed out into the heavens, being somewhat overawed by the size
and splendour of the cosmos and the privilege of being allowed this brief
temporal view of its unfolding history. The appeal of colourful photographs
of nebulae and galaxies have been taken up by particle physicists, who
illustrate the tracks of high energy collisions in equally adorning colour
in an attempt to enhance their subject. Also the work of such sub-atomic
physicists, has become coterminous with those of cosmologists. Dealing
with exotic sub-atomic particles with Greek names, does not seem so remote
when one can show the relevance of such work to the large-scale structure
of the universe.
Moving inward bound, it has become incumbent on physicists to explain all physical
phenomena in a single theory - a 'Nirvana of knowledge'. This has been partially achieved
by employing the concept of gauge theories and realising the importance of symmetry in the
universe. Such inherently mathematical notions, have been conveyed using ingenious
analogies, which have their limitations as will be shown presently. The richness of the
physical universe, seems to be involved in a selection in certain symmetries which yield
conservation laws. The ways that these symmetries are chosen/broken determine the
character of these physical laws. In an attempt to unify these laws under one overriding
symmetry, it has become necessary to resort to even greater subtleties in concepts.
Electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force have been shown to be a broken symmetry of one
such gauge field, while the strong nuclear force, has been described (but not well
tested), as being another gauge field. The fact that these forces were equally strong and
unified in the early history of the universe, soon after the big bang, has allowed an
opportunity to popularise such esoteric knowledge.
If we consider the following description of a post graduate textbook, the
daunting rift between academe and the general public is readily apparent."It begins
with an elementary treatment of the bosonic string, Succeeding chapters describe the
incorporation of additional degrees of freedom--fermionic degrees of freedom leading to
supersymmetry, and internal quantum numbers leading to gauge interactions." The
sentiments of such a blurb from the cover of a textbook, would no doubt be beyond the
comprehension of the average layman. It is therefore a difficult task to convey the
progressive hierarchy of ideas, that has resulted in our present day view of nature. In
order to try and produce a theory which also incorporates gravity, which has resisted the
most valiant attempts, scientists have had to move into higher dimensions of space (up to
26,most of which are compactified), utilise supernumbers and most recently, regard the
fundamental quantum dynamics, as being relating to strings rather than particles.
Most of my
review has however been concerned with importance of gauge theories and the concept of
symmetry, since these are crucial to our understanding of the 4 known forces of nature. I
have traced their origin and development in university textbooks and research papers and
studied how these have been distilled in an attempt to explain such esoteric concepts to
the general public.
Textbooks
usually introduce this subject, with a reminder of Emmy Noether's theorem in which ,using
higher dynamics (the calculus of variations), it is demonstrated that the conservation
laws that are at the foundation of physics can be replaced by the concept of symmetry,
applied to certain equations(the Lagrangian action of a particle). The fact that the
principal of least action is symmetrical under spatial (angular) translation, leads to the
conservation of linear (angular) momentum, while that of time symmetry, yields the
conservation of energy. Interest in this approach was rekindled when Mills and Yang
produced a classic paper, which applies this principle to fields and uses (local) gauge
symmetry to invoke the electromagnetic field. (The term gauge historically refers to a
symmetry that is exhibited by means of adding a scalar field to Maxwell's equations). The
fruits of such efforts, was a way of unifying the weak nuclear force with electromagnetism
and a possible way forward for unification with the strong nuclear force and gravity, by
means of such gauge theories. The symmetry of the Principle of Least Action is quite well
explained in Feynman's popular book 'The Character of Physical Law', without the need to
resort to any mathematics.
I found that most of the popular science books however, although introducing
the ethos of QT for entities such as electrons (eg. orbital clouds in
atoms), they resort back to the 'billiard ball' approach when considering
the quarks that make up the nucleons. The problem then arises when they
go on to model the concept of symmetry as an exchange of further billiard
balls, namely the W and Z particles and gluons, since this analogy fails
to explain the origin of an attractive force in many of the situations.
Although these analogies are useful in conveying some of the outcomes
of modern theory, there are several lacunae in their methods.
The standard analogy of 2 skaters moving in parallel to each other and exchanging a
medicine ball, conveys the idea of a repulsive force but is inadequate to explain the more
important attractive nature of a force, that is crucial in keeping quarks together in a
proton(or explain the strong nuclear force which is an epiphenomena of Quantum
Chromodynamics). Such an analogy does even less to convey the weak nuclear force whose
main manifestation is that of radioactive beta decay which is hard to covey as a force.
The problem arises due to the fact that the original formulation of these ideas is highly
mathematical and that such a Lagrangian formulation gives priority to the way particles
interact via fields which have certain symmetries imposed upon them, as opposed to the
notion of forces acting on particles. Such higher dynamics subsumes Newton's view of a
force acting on a particle but the price for giving priority to such a symmetry
description of the fundamental forces is to lose immediate sight of the idea of a force,
which is now replaced by the notion of an interaction. Also the equations have to obey the
postulates of QT since they are dealing with sub atomic phenomena. (In part they do make
some use of this, in that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is used to justify the
creation and exchange of the bosons that mediate the gauge field). However, they often
fail to emphasise the fact that the amplitude of the field which represents the strength
of a field at a particular position in space-time is a probabilistic measure of the number
of these bosons present. Another aspect that is often overlooked is the fact that the
quarks (and leptons) themselves are treated as fields themselves, (obeying the correct
fermionic statistics) and are therefore put on an equal footing, especially when
supersymmetry is invoked. The quantum field therefore overcomes the problem of
wave/particle duality and arises naturally if one is compelled to write the axioms of QT
in a way that is compatible with those of Special Relativity. Intrinsic spin and the concept of anti-matter also occur out of such a
union. However, the classical notion of a spinning top is used in most of the layman books
studied, although in fact this notion is far removed from the actual nature of intrinsic
spin, which is steeped in the mathematics of the non faithful representation of the
rotational group.
One of the better popularist books at conveying such ideas as gauge fields is The Search
For Perfect Symmetry' (H.Paegels) which employs a grid that can be used to visualise a
local gauge transformation. In this respect one can envisage a fundamental force as that
which needs to be invoked, in order for the Lagrangian action to remain invariant under a
local gauge transformation. This is in fact very similar to the idea invoked by Einstein
in his formulation of General Relativity, which is still our best description of
gravity. Although not strictly a gauge field (Einstein's field equations are not invariant
under the addition of a scalar field) General Relativity does invoke a gravitational
force, when the space-time co-ordinates of Special Relativity are locally transformed, and
it was this equivalence between an accelerating frame of reference and a (localised)
gravitational field, which gave Einstein his original insight.
Indeed many books rely on this pictorial image of a gravitational field, as being a warp
in space which causes the path of objects to bend (cf appendix). The shortcoming these
analogies are however, that they rely on the image of a weight to distort the fabric of
space in the first place and that they fail to convey the fact that it is
(pseudo-Euclidean) space-time itself that undergoes this localised transformation and not
just space. Hence when the public asks questions such as how old and how large is the
universe; they often find the answers inadequate. If the universe is a curved sphere then
where is its centre and what was there before the universe existed? Actually, St.
Augustine provided an answer similar to that of physics, in that " the universe was
not created in time but rather simultaneously with time"
For many decades it was erroneously believed that a singularity existed
at the event horizon of a black hole. It was only in 1960’s
that Kruzkal et al, realised that this was not in fact true but was merely
an artefact of the choice of co-ordinates. These days the so called light
clones are often drawn crossing the event horizon to great effect, without
any dire consequences and are an excellent pictorial explanation of what
actually happens without referring to tensor calculus.
A more intermediate level of understanding gauge fields is provided by scientific
magazines such as New Scientist, Nature and Scientific America (cf appendix). They measure
the strength of a gauge field by the amount of rotation of an arrow dial, as it moves
through a loop of space-time. This is the actual method by which Quantum Chromodynamics is
analysed via computer algorithms, in which a gauge dial is moved around a lattice of
manageable size and by applying the path integral techniques (devised originally by
Feynman), they can gain a measure of the force, by means of a summation of the action, as
represented by the rotation of the arrow. Mathematically this method is a powerful
approximation technique but on a less academic level, the lattice diagram can be used to
convey to the non specialist (including other scientists), the way such forces are
interpreted, even though the full mathematical machinery has to be glossed over.
Public Confidence in Science
The ideas introduced in COMMUNICATIONS suggest that science is a specialised
category and it's esoteric language and concepts can lead to an unfaithful
representation of the facts. If ill-founded decisions are made
by non specialists or if science fails to satisfy the correct and exhaustive
procedure of authoritative peer review, then the repercussions
result in a loss of public confidence in the governing institutions.
As John Ziman states(1) science relies heavily upon communication both in the
dissemination of scientific results to other scientists and in relaying important information
to the layman. This task has become increasingly more difficult with the modern explosion
in scientific knowledge in which scientific journals and a specialised language are the
main channels of communication. With such a rapid growth has come differentiation and the
field of scientific knowledge becomes divided into finer subdivisions, each with it's own
specialised audiences. Indeed one of the key failures mentioned, is the reluctance to take
into account the role of the wider audience and this can lead to a breakdown in
communication.
Jasanoff talks of the BSE crisis as being an unprecedented breakdown in communication
between public institutions and their citizens, while in actual fact a similar incident
had occurred earlier with the outbreak of salmonella
in eggs.(2) Despite the fact that food policy organisations such as MAFF realised that a
link between eggs and salmonella existed, they chose to keep the information out of the
public domain. In an attempt to avert a scare, the food industry limited the amount of information
released to the public while they tried to determine the extent of the problem. The
subsequent statement by a government minister (that most egg production was infected by
salmonella), therefore did more than just create a fear regarding their consumption.
Instead of the intended message regarding the importance of thorough cooking, it
undermined the public confidence in the food manufacturing industry.
I would tend to agree with Southwoods critical assessment of the duty of the
scientific community. Even the 'Absolutists' such as Wolpert should not shrink from their
responsibility to offer advice on controversies that revolve around scientific issues.
Although they regard the main role of pure science as being a quest for an objective
description of nature, which is morally neutral, it's technological application, as
Wolpert would claim, can do harm or good. Scientists are in a privileged position,
regarding the knowledge they hold and have a responsibility to ensure that their scientific
research is not blatantly misused and that their integrity is not compromised by
commercial factors. As C.P. Snow writes 'scientists have a moral imperative to say what
they know'.(3) The moral responsibility of scientists should therefore extend beyond that
of scientific truth but also pervade into human morals. They would then no doubt share the
view of the Relativists (who posit that science is a social construct), in that at least
ethics are socially negotiated.
Scientists such as Bohr, Einstein and Oppenheimer accepted their
responsibility for the consequences of their work, rather than
remain isolated in their ivory tower. In a similar fashion
those scientists involved in the BSE crisis have a moral responsibility
to warn of the possible dangers, rather than err unrealistically on the
side of caution. The non participatory doctrine that accompanies the Cartesian
framework of science has lost much of its credibility. With
the revolution of quantum mechanics the objective viewpoint
has been replaced with a subjectivity that is reminiscent of
Eastern mysticism. Bohr himself chose the Taoist Yin-Yang symbol as is
coat of arms following his Knighthood, as it's philosophy of complementarity
was in keeping with his own.(4) Now more than ever we realise
that we cannot isolate ourselves from our actions. Science
has provided us with unprecedented power to influence our environment
and we cannot insulate ourselves from the ramifications of our
actions. As the Nobel Laureate J. Roberts states 'other advances in science
may result in other mass destructions, maybe more readily available
than nuclear weapons. Genetic engineering is quite a possible
area'.(5) Scientists being the custodians of such knowledge
cannot relinquish themselves of any responsibility as to the consequences
of their discoveries. Having opened up such a Pandora’s
box, scientists have a duty not to remain silent upon moral
issues, even if economic and political factors may pressurise them
to do so.(6&7) Indeed it is these and other 'institutional deficits'
which Jasanoff cites as being the main reason for the BSE saga.
Whereas pure science tends to arrive at a collaborative consensus as to what
theories or models should eventually be accepted, it often cannot say with such clarity
how such knowledge should be implemented. It is likely that as 'expertise' becomes more
widely shared, viewpoints proliferate and a unanimous agreement becomes less likely, as
dissenting scientists attack the Achilles heel of their opponents.
If we consider acid rain for example, it is difficult to provide a strong causal
link between a specific change in the emissions of sulphur dioxide/nitrogen oxides, with
the site of environmental damage at distant locations. Such attempts to link these affects
are further exacerbated due to the time scales over which such cycles act. Acid salts
accumulate over centuries and a sudden cessation of deposition would not necessarily
produce an immediate improvement in the environment. Complications bound and the degree of
damage can vary across different environments, all of which makes it difficult for experts
to agree upon the likely benefits that would accompany abatement, especially considering
the increased cost of reducing such emissions into he atmosphere.
The wide diversity of opinions held by such experts consequently
generate a wide range in the policies that can be adopted,
depending on how well the sources are identified as well as
their impact.’ In so complex and multi-disciplinary an area as the
natural environment, certainty is a luxury which we can very rarely enjoy'(8)
Such limitations in the capabilities of experts have allowed
industry and governments to procrastinate over cleaning up
their environment.(WWW)
It is the success of science which has caused a decline in public confidence, since
as the public becomes enlightened and expertise is shared “ consensus becomes more
difficult to achieve”.(9) This is particularly the case in the so called 'advocacy
science' that is prevalent in the USA, in which the inability to reach a political
decision over a scientific controversy, decreases public trust in expertise.(10) Also the
'Reflexivity'(11) process means that science has become more directed to self made
problems (an attack on it's own authority) as in the case of Alar, ozone pollution and
genetically modified crops. As Jasanoff claims, this transparent limitation of the experts,
has partly arisen due to the fact that the role of the expert has diversified, so that a
controversial issue may involve the disparate opinions of biologists, epidemiologists,
environmentalists, and physical scientists.
Incidents such as the BSE crisis which illustrate the dire consequences of civic
dislocation, do provide powerful ammunition for those who are critical of science. This is
particularly pertinent to those who (as Holton identifies) are resentful of the way modern
science has alienated them despite their considerable intellect. This influential group,
therefore find strength in the failings of science, which results from it's perceived
indifference to social and environmental issues. Feeling abandoned by the specialisation
of modern science they 'in exasperation write attacks on science'(12) and their platform
becomes reinforced by the phenomena of Civic Dislocation.
Another group that would also benefit from the oxygen of publicity that accompanies
sagas such as the BSE crisis, would be what Holten describes as the 'Dionysians' whose
views range from 'New Age thinkers to wishful parallels with Eastern mysticism, from
intellectual anarchy to crystal power'.(13) Such a romantic backlash has frequently
occurred since the days of the enlightenment but Jasanoff's articles identifies a new
source of sustenance for such a movement.(14)
In his article Holton criticises science for not being more sensitively tuned to
environment and health and that mismanagement of these issues can lead to the technologization
of barbarism or threaten life itself on this globe.'(15) The anti-science post-modernists
are unable to assess the severity of RISK by
abstract reasoning due to the speculative
nature of scientific facts. However when such incidents as BSE occured the knowledge gap
between experts and citizens becomes greatly reduced and unless the scientific community
can be seen to react in a responsible reassuring manner, the resulting Civic Dislocation
greatly tarnishes the image of science.
Most certainly the reassurance given by public institutions has to have credibility
and any ineffectiveness in the advice given, weakens the legitimacy of that institution.
As Colin Blakemore stated regarding the BSE crisis, the public will become distrustful of
the government if 'it continues to betray
it's ignorance of the concepts of risk by transforming cautious scientific and medical
advice into categorical reassurances'(16)
The formal language of pure science is one of certainty, however when this feature
of science is exported beyond the realm of the laboratory and applied inappropriately to
complex situations, it can often result in the public losing confidence in the
organisation producing the 'Mandate Science'.(17) Indeed a key feature of the risk society
that Beck refers to, is that science no longer has a monopoly on rationality and In some instances, it's advice may
sometimes be seen to be myopic.’ What becomes clear in risk discussions are the
fissures and gaps between scientific and social rationality in dealing with the hazardous
potential of civililization"(18)
The public often have doubts regarding the impartiality of scientific advisory bodies
and the evidence that they produce, in relation to the advice that they give.(19) certain
scientific advice may be seen 'to be shaped by an awareness of legal tandardization of
proof and by knowledge about how to use scientific information effectively in a court or
regulatory setting.'(20) If an institution's appraisal of an issue, is thought to be
governed by financial considerations or if subsequent developments highlight the inability
of an advising body to perceive the full scenario, then the public will undoubtively lose
confidence in any reassurances that are given. As Salter comments 'it is a commonplace
observation that "science can be bought” or at least that evidence can be
manipulated for any value position in the regulation debate'.(21)
The credible reassurance that Jasanoff
refers to, can only be achieved if advisory institutions are seen to be value free and
competent at interpreting the full range of scientific evidence, so as to make the right
moral judgement in the public interest. Competing claims and shifting viewpoints only
serve to undermine the 'the legitimacy of public institutions' and the reassurances given
by their experts.
References:
1 Scientific
Communication J. Ziman
(COMUNICATION)
2 From Community to
Issue Network: Salmonella in eggs and the New
Policy On Food. Martin J. Smith (UNCERTAINTY)
3 &5 Genetic Engineering.
Dream or Nightmare. Ch I (pg 16,21) The Brave
New World Of Bad Science and Big Buisiness. Mae-Wan Ho (RESPONSIBILITY)
4 The
Philosophy of Neils Bohr. The Framework of Complementarity. H. J.F. North
6 The Same And Not The Same
Ch 27. Roald Hoffman. (RESPONSIBILITY)
7 Science is selling out.
Tom Wilkie (Independent 28th May 1996 ) (RESPONSIBILITY)
8 Acid
Politics. Sonia Boehmer -Christiansen and Skea(POLICY)
9 Jasanoff pg 227
10&11 The crisis
of scienctific expertise in fin de siecle. T
Horlick-Jones and B De Marchi (EXPERTS)
12&13 'How to think about
the anti-science phenomenon' Gerald Holten (ANTI-SCIENCE)
14 A Consumers
Guide To Punditry Henry Bauer (Science Today)
In Defence of Science Ch6 Anti Science. Jack Grove
16 BSE
and citizen science pg7
17,20&21 Mandated
Science. Liora Salta (REGULATIONS)
18 From
Industrial Society To Risk Society. Beck 1992
19 Understanding
Science From The Perspective Of Scientific Knowledge. S. Yearly (TRUST)
WWW
http:/www.america.nature.com/Nature2/serv?SID=25602728&CAT=NatGen&PG=kyoto/kyoto1.html
Is
Science Losing Its Objectivity
The main import of John Ziman's article, is that the whole enterprise of academic
research has become so large and expensive, that it now has to be economically desirable,
rather than being ideologically governed. Instead of scientists being 'united by truth' ,
this post-academic science has new goals and is organised on an entirely different basis,
in which social values have the highest priority. The previous academic mode of knowledge
production, is undergoing a cultural revolution in which it is being systematically
replaced by social and economic considerations, which Ziman believes will regulate the
type of knowledge that it produces.
In the new post-academic science, individual achievements are merged
into the collective action of a multidisciplinary team, utilising
high speed global communication and sophisticated but expensive
instrumentation. One of the ramifications of this, is that research
results that would have been published immediately as public ownership,
are now being regarded as intellectual property of the sponsoring
organisation and kept secret for commercial reasons. Another
effect of post-academic science, is that peer review will be
replaced with a quality control, which will scrutinize the pragmatic value
of the project and its economic performance, and
greater importance will be attached to 'entrepreneurial
and managerial skills'. Researchers will have to work in small
flexible teams, whose short term projects will be dictated to by market
forces.
Ziman therefore contends that as the cost of scientific progress soars, the
realities of social existence will increasingly tend to favour the kind of 'applied Research’
that is associated with industrial laboratories, to the detriment of the 'pure
Research’ traditionally undertaken by universities. He therefore warns, that such a change
may tarnish the reputation of science as being an objective and impartial arbitrator, when
it comes to resolving certain social conflicts
One of
the consequences of the changes that Ziman perceives in his post-academic science is that
science based controversies will become more frequent. The high cost of current research
technology means that an increasing amount of such work will be undertaken by large
multinationals corporations who will be motivated by profit. Large and expensive research
will not be allowed to go it's way, in which knowledge is pursued for it's own sake and
the individuals involved, will no longer be rewarded/motivated by acclaim and prestige.
Instead research will be organised in an entrepreneurial manner in which financial
considerations will dominate and the public will become aware of the loss of scientific
impartiality that will accompany this post-academic science. The integrity of the
intellectual milieu will not be the dominant factor, since research will tend to be
carried out in small flexible teams where short term projects will be dictated to by
market forces. We may therefore arrive at 'an autonomous system which can advance only by
the guidance of something akin to Adam Smith's "invisible hand"(1) Also any such advancement in the frontiers of
scientific knowledge will be regarded as commercial secrets and the only experts in the field,
will likely to be employees of such large industrial companies.
Evidence of this can be seen in the large pharmaceuticals who are aiming to patent
any genetic information that their expensive research discovers.(2) They regard such
intellectual property as the only means by which they can recuperate their huge costs, if
and when a use for such naturally occurring biochemicals is found. If they do find a use
for this knowledge, such as in the genetic modification of food so as to increase yield or
shelf life of food crops, they would then be financially induced to apply such technology,
even if there are reservations regarding the long term repercussions of such a move.(WWW)
There would be less scope for expensive independent assessment of such development and
most of the expertise in this area would be held by a few companies, whose employees are
sworn to confidentiality regarding their research.
The public would then distrust the motives of such mega-technologies in trying to
manipulate the commercial market, especially if it for example, involves meddling with the
gene pool of various species of plant. These scientific establishments will be perceived
to be rivals rather than collaborators and as Ziman mentions, communication (peer review
and dissemination of information) is an important contributor to scientific progress and
without it there would be more likelihood of controversial decisions being made.
References:
1 CD ROM Ethical Dimensions Of Science Ch 7 S.
Richards
2 RESPONSIBILITY pgs 3,8&9
WWW BIDS Web Database search
result:
Swiss reject curbs on genetic engineering. Nature 1998,Vol393,No6685,p507
Swiss
approve use of genetic engineering. Lancet,1998,Vol351,No9118,p1795
Patent of life ? No patents of life.Deutsche Tierarztliche Wochenschrift
1998Vol105,No3,p90-93 (translation)
Environmental
release of trangenic trees in Canada. Forestry Chronicle,1998,Vol74,No2,p 203-219
Spare OHP's
|
